It certainly didn't include critical thinking or statistical analysis, so trying to make sense of statistics presented to you is a waste of time; you are too susceptible to the subtleties of stats and their presentation (and are thus easily deceived).

Please allow me to educate you on the above stats and their presentation:



The numbers can't honestly be manipulated, but people presenting the stats can manipulate what's presented and what they are (deceptively) saying to the reader quite easily, as the writer of the above quote must know, as that is what she has done.

She first makes the statement that stats can be manipulated and then presents "simple" data (to prove that assertion correct) in what appears to be a VERY insidious way by choosing the statistics that "simply" show what she wants them to show. This leaves her with plausible deniability if anyone shows her analysis to be fallacious, because she can always fall back on her original assertion that stats can be manipulated to show what you want (as she has done).

She goes on to report what other countries have done with respect to gun control:


Please note that in defining herself as a paralegal, she implies through innuendo that what she says has some credibility behind it without saying anything about her prowess with statistics (which is probably greater than she would admit to if anyone questioned the presentation), which still leaves her with the desired plausible deniability of the statistical "ignorance" of most people (and she implied herself to be in the majority with that innuendo) and proof of her original assertion that stats can be manipulated.

She then goes on to cite various countries ranked by gun homicide rates per 100,000 population and then comments:


Without any sort of analysis, she made her statements to "prove" her previously unmentioned "assumption" that nations with low gun crime have strict gun control laws, knowing that some of the countries at the bottom of her list have strict gun laws & implying without evidence that those at or near the top do not.

She then goes on to blame cultural differences between nations, which accomplishes two things…first the innuendo through omission, that culturally similar nations, such as Canada, UK, Australia et al have enacted gun control legislation (thus implying that the US is the "uncivilized" odd man out and should get with the culturally similar program)… secondly, that the reason the US is uncivilized is based on it's (allegedly) unique "superhero" culture (which by innuendo has an irrational love for guns).

Please note that without proving at all that relevant differences exist between similar cultures, she has "proved" through innuendo that they do. Not only that, she has "proved" without proving in any way, her assertion by innuendo that lower gun crime is the result of gun control legislation. In fact she has backed up her assertion that "…there is no clear causal relation between the gun law and the gun violence" by actually showing none, while at the same time IMPLYING that one exists (pretty slick I'd say, and definitely not the work of an amateur IMO)

The presentation betrays considerable sophistication in deception and propaganda techniques that goes quite beyond the training of a paralegal. Either she learned a LOT working with lawyers (to the extent that she should be one herself), or perhaps she is already a lawyer that started out as a paralegal. IF she isn't a lawyer, she should be, as she'd make a "good"(talented) one (of course we all know that truly good lawyers don't actually exist LOL)

Advice: Think critically, analyze and don't be fooled by anyone just because they said something…and for G-d's sake, READ THE FINE PRINT!

better look up Switzerland and your whole theory shatters!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list?fb=native

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

yet with our low Guncrimerate we still have the Kneejerk-Gun-grabbers!

and,what do you know about it?

The Laws that are on the Book now aren't enforced,and you want to pile more on top?
If the Laws were enforced,it would be a sad day for any Criminal using a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime!

First of all Statistics can indeed be manipulated when you selectively assess and present the "Facts." CRIME and GUN CRIME are two different things. They are both CRIMES but a gun crime specifically involves a firearm. It is convenient to present GUN CRIME statistics and leave out all the other crime statistics, fistfights, baseball bats, vehicles, poison, animal attacks, and all the other various weapons people use, and then try to shock and horrify people with the numbers. To equate Crime and Guns the way these arguments are being presented is fallacious in its own right due to suppression of other information pertinent to the argument.


Frankly people who want gun control imposed on us are in favor of a POLICE state and some of the rhetoric you have spoken in other topics suggests that you are against such a social policy.

So if you would answer this? Are you FOR a police state or AGAINST it?

You do know when seconds count the police are minuets away!


And as stated before, look at Mexico. Who has the guns? Who DO the police serve there? So where does that leave everyone else in Mexico?

the only way I would visit there now is if I was armed myself.

That is right, and how the data is collected is even more important. In the UK someone killed is not considered a homicide, for data reporting purposes, until the investigation is closed. This screws their data horridly.

You gotta ask?…As long as you have, I can only tell you that I stand for the people…ALL of them. A police state wrongfully protects the state from the people. Who can protect the people from the police state?…clearly only the people themselves!

The second amendment was put in to the US constitution to ensure that the people could do that, but even if citizens are allowed "some" arms, it is not enough for that protection. They should be able to buy anything the army buys; anything less would be pitting pea shooters against howitzers if it ever came down to it.

I'm afraid only guns & rifles just don't cut it in this modern age. Neither does a government organized militia. What is needed is DISorganized militia that is able to organize quickly into a fighting force sufficient to give a modern army a run for its money. Neighbourhoods ought to be able to buy real military grade equipment like bazookas & such. Townships should be able to buy their own tanks & artillery and their own armed drones. We know that deterrence works, so the only way to deter tyranny is to present a credible threat.

As unfortunate as it sounds, governments have a tendency to move toward tyranny and the first act of the tyrant is to disarm the people, so this gun issue has me gravely concerned. This is NOT the time to let the legislators have their way. If the American people don't want to live under a tyranny, they had better get their act together fast, because most of the rest of the world already lives under tyranny to spite the fact that the countries label themselves as "free."

We all know that we already have a "one world government"…The Banks. The governments of most of the countries (including the USA) have been bought & paid for years ago and they are getting ready to foreclose on your country. The only thing standing between many American people and FEMA work (concentration) camps (to help pay off the debt) is the armament of the people themselves. Give up on the Second amendment and you will give up any claim to being free at all and you will have lost your last shot at regaining your freedom from the debt slavery imposed by the banks. You will become a nation of slaves, just like the rest of the countries controlled by the banks.

It's always nice to know one is not alone in their true love of their country and the freedom and liberties of its inhabitants.

Where do you go when trouble arises? Who do you call? The police? Why?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE FIREPOWER TO PROTECT YOU!

Hopefully they arrive in time and realize who the bad guy is before they start shooting (we know how often that fails too!)....we know what happens when they don't!

You are aware Americans are far too apathetic these days to organize and work within the system. It can be fixed but it would take a seriously concerted effort. But in 12 years America could be fixed enough to be on the right path. But likewise it is going to take having a secret service like he CIA to counter them or whoever the hell the MIBs are pulling that "National Security" cloak and dagger crap on us Americans. How the hell do you organize something like that? We are talking the fact that some sick and twisted and highly Machiavellian crap goes on under our noses. And then comes the Media... Getting your message out there can be done but you have to work around the media. And you have to use the money of the enemy to work against the enemy. Now here is the good part, America having its own Department of the Treasury and no Federal Reserve bank... I wonder how Wall Street would handle that?

It couldn't!

Here is the better part. If Americans on their own initiative started using real gold/silver/precious metals, peer-to-peer anonymous currencies (like the Bitcoin), local currencies, coupons, IOUs, their own bankers accceptances (A4V), etc. they might be able to wean themselves sufficiently from the Federal reserve's monopoly on counterfeit money to survive the inevitable economic collapse when the dollar implodes. Some sensible emergency planning doesn't hurt either (prepper stuff). It only makes sense to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Since the problems appear to stem from a monolithic, centralized federal government, it also only makes sense that power should be delegated by the lower levels of governance. As we all know, the power of government is delegated by the individuals. In practice, this has left us with a top-down hierarchy that goes from federal to state, to county in practice. The hierarchy was intended to be bottom up, so lets start making it bottom-up. Organize at the neighbourhood level and build local militias to help your county Sheriff. These could be brought together under the umbrella of a State militia (but not a state RUN militia…a militia MUST always be controlled by the people).

These and other options give the people considerable clout against a federal government that becomes treasonous and turns against its people. The power and courage of a nation is no less than and no greater than the power of the individuals of that nation and a house divided against itself cannot stand, so don't sit and argue and bicker amongst yourselves about what you should do to wind up doing nothing. UNITE with your neighbours, with your county sheriffs, with your state reps in taking back the power of the delegation of your authority. Organize as autonomous groups, only loosely connected by communication, the common objective and compassion for your fellows. Act as individuals dedicated to a common cause, because in truth, the common cause is freedom from tyranny and oppression.

Stay DISorganized…have a CIVILIAN common command structure in place in order to act and strike cooperatively and effectively should the need arise, but at all times recognize that your HIGHEST ALLEGIANCE is to your family, friends and neighbours and build the informal militias and economies around that recognition. The sum of all that "grassroots" power would be invincible and no tyrant or tyranny could act against it and stand, because the tyrant would no longer have a power base upon which he could act.

Most importantly, DON'T be fooled. Remember that the flag you rally around is YOUR FLAG, the flag of a nation of a mighty people. It is NOT the flag of a mighty government or leader, so don't rally around it when the tyrant waves it and implies that you are unpatriotic if you don't rally around the tyrant's cause. When you salute the flag, remember you are saluting your friend and neighbours, not the bought & paid for clowns who stole the power of the people in a rigged election. Should you send petitions to Washington?…NO!…Send declarations and orders based on plebiscites.

This stuff is only off the top of my head, but I'm sure by now you get the idea. I didn't come up with the philosophy either; guys Like Jefferson and Paine did. So EVERYBODY should be studying them and looking to their writings for guidance & wisdom if they feel lost; most of it is as true today as it was then (perhaps even more so).

Don't look for a saviour or a leader; it is your job to be both. Don't lose your reverence for great men because they were human. I don't care (for instance) whether Jefferson had slaves and therefore doesn't set a good example. Don't hold the human failings against him or men like him. NOBODY'S PERFECT and every golden idol will be tarnished in some way, so don't idolize or judge based on irrelevant criteria. In short, be your own leader…believe in yourself! When it comes to those you might revere, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I haven't even touched the surface of what you guys can do to defeat tyranny in any form. In truth, I don't think it has to come down to fighting in the streets & fields for your freedom like you did 220 years ago, but you have to act NOW to take back the power of the individual citizen and that involves both participation and commitment as individuals. Don't think to yourselves that you can sit on the sidelines to watch the revolution & see how things turn out. That would be like one team in a football game sitting on the sidelines watching the other team make touchdown after unopposed touchdown. There would be no real game and there would be no real revolution without YOU, so get you a*ses in gear and start one.

I guarantee that once the people can hold the Sword of Damocles over their government, it will snap to attention and await its next order. It will become a true public servant and quit trying to be the public's master. The next American revolution need not be fought with guns & cannons, it will probably be fought with money (it's your money, so don't give money to the enemy), but it needs to be fought with courage, fortitude and intelligence at all levels by all the citizens. It is a revolution of creative unity against a corrupt status quo and it can be won easily if you all pull together.

Moving to a social credit monetary system will kill the bank for good and make any nation using it into a sovereign economy where the wealth of the nation STAYS in the nation and accumulates. It replaces the national debt with a national dividend that could be paid out annually or saved for a rainy day. It abolishes the income tax (a con of the banks in the first place). Don't let the "social" in the name scare you it's the antithesis of socialism as you've come to know it. It is a lot like the existing bank system, except the government borrows from the people instead of the bank, so the government is bought & paid for by the people, not the bank. I'm sure you've seen the allegiance the government has to the banks over the last 4 years; just imagine if the government had that sort of allegiance to the people…It would under a social credit system.

There is a catholic outfit called (I think) the Michael society that tries to promote a social credit system (I think they see it as the monetary system we'll have after the Second Coming). Whatever your views on religion, social credit is a secular monetary philosophy, not a religious one; it is NOT a political party (that was destroyed philosophically from within by the banks). I tell you this only to not consider the source of promoters of social credit so much as the monetary philosophy itself. Now here's a cute story outlining its basic principles:

http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

Maybe the Second American revolution could just come down to a national plebescite (or a collection of state "propositions") declaring the Fed "persona non grata" and demanding the treasury implement a social credit monetary system. It would be a real revolution, it would be good for the country, and best of all, nobody has to shoot anybody.

so , they dont consider someone dead from accident, suicide, or homicide, until they have actually DETERMINED That to be the case?

get outta here!!!

seriously

give me a break! the assertion of the thread is that countries that ban guns have higher crime

whatever was 'inferred' by some is not my problem

what I 'implied' was only what I stated


that there is no proof of a CAUSAL relation between gun laws and gun crime

that there is quite some 'grey' area in determining what it means to 'ban guns' as some of the examples often used dont have a gun 'ban' but varying gun regulations

that when we look, quite simply, without finding a way to disect and bend it to our own beliefs

at gun crime and gun regulation, there is no consistent enough pattern proving that less guns will equal more crime

how did I choose to show that? by simply giving the top ten in three pertinent categories

gun crime by country, gun regulation by country, and gun ownership by country

gun crime, because that is the topic of the thread
gun regulation, because the laws are also in discussion
gun ownership, because stricter gun laws doesnt always equal fewer guns, as is shown by lack of correlation between those two top ten lists


,,no manipulation here, the simplest of numbers that can be understood by just about anyone with beyond an eighth grade education,,,


and , yes, culture does matter, and would (and here I guess I am obligated to add IN MY OPINION) be a better factor to consider when looking at the gun culture/gun crimes than mere laws or ownership which clearly can be similar between countries which have very different (gun crime) results,,,,

There is a difference between "gun crime" and "crime."

" the assertion of the thread is that countries that ban guns have higher crime "

WHICH IS TRUE.



Here you added "gun" to "crime."

You need to be clear when you are making statements. Crime and gun crime are not the same thing.

In Britain, there are less guns and more crime since the banning of guns.

By crime, I mean, rape, robbery, etc.

I have no idea how that conclusion is reached,,,

is there even a standard that can be referred to which tallies ALL CRIME together by country?

it would be interesting to research, if anyone can point me to it,,,,

Actual Statistics.

In Britain the Bobbies are not even allowed to have guns.
So the only people with guns are the criminals and "her Majesty's Secret Police." (henchmen of the Banksters)

The people there were forced to turn over even their handguns.

They are sorry they did too.

I am kind of curious where Canada rates on that list as we have strict gun control here. Our crime rate has dropped overall over the last few years but most of the shootings committed were by gangs and not your average citizen.

I did live in Britain for a year

its actually, England, part of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland

I was in Wales


and it was refreshing, that the worst stories on the news were ones where PREDOMINATELY the victim(s) lived



as with any other country, there are some areas that are 'safer' than others, but Id still feel safer in their unsafe areas than in ours,,



and England may be an example where crime in general went up, because maybe people arent scared their crimes will get them killed

but thats not a negative to me, as Im not an advocate of people losing their lives over things like stealing or trespassing,,,

there are countries who have seen crime drop with more gun regulation as well

so its still not enough, to me, to hold up a few countries as some proof positive of one side or the other of the gun control debate,,,

(not that I believe that to be your intent, just speaking generally)

this will be the most prejudiced thing I have posted here

but, without exception, every time I hae met a CAnadian they have been the NICEST people ever, warm, welcoming, happy

I think that Culture is a bit different than the american culture,,,

but thats only my opinion,,,,

It is still wrong to ask the public to give up their right to defend themselves against crimes. Why should the criminals be given a population of unarmed victims to choose from?

And it is not just a few countries from what I gather.

But putting all that statistic stuff to one side, I personally don't want anyone to tell me I can't carry a gun to protect myself and my possessions.